User talk:OptimusPrimeRibs

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on John Edward. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Regarding your addition to the article, please see Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision. Dreadstar ☥  16:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You can respond here, I've got your talk page watchlisted. Dreadstar ☥  16:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Prove John Edward is a psychic medium or ban me. Otherwise he is staying as "Self-described". Have a nice day. OptimusPrimeRibs (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reported you for violating WP:3RR here. Dreadstar ☥  17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That is all right. Your childish power-trip and conceit doesn't bother me. I am curious though as to why you believe you're absolved of precisely what you're accusing me of. Remember: it takes two to tango, my friend. OptimusPrimeRibs (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR, it explains the brightline threshold you crossed. Dreadstar  ☥  17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

One last question before I am finished: why are you so opposed to facts and the truth? OptimusPrimeRibs (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a fact, it's incorrect because it's misleading. He's not merely 'self-described', he's described that way by others.  And being "self-described X" is not an occupation, so double-whammy incorrect on your part.  This issue caused widespread disruption across paranormal articles for years and was finally settled by ArbCom in a way contrary to your proposed changed. Dreadstar  ☥  17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Just so I'm correct on your position. You believe "self-described X" is NOT an occupation, but "X" (where "X" is something that has never scientifically been shown to exist) is? So a "self-described unicorn tender" is not a profession, but "unicorn tender" is? OptimusPrimeRibs (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And by the way: I've edited more pages than just John Edward. His was the first I did so with an account. Feel free to pretend you're more knowledgeable than you really are. You're very adept at it. OptimusPrimeRibs (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Another thought just came. How is "self-described psychic medium" misleading, whereas "psychic medium" is not? The former implies that be claims to possess supernatural powers, but in-fact does not. The latter implies that he scientifically does possess said powers. How is my wording more misleading than yours? OptimusPrimeRibs (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Psychic medium is a cultural artifact as described here: Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision. Dreadstar  ☥  17:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well this is the last thing I'll ever write here. Farewell. I stand by my statement below though: after changing my IP address I will continue to modify the factually incorrect text found on Wikipedia perpetuated by Wikipedia users whom cannot accept outsiders modifying their precious child. Dreadstar my only advice to you is to use your brain for critical thought and not boosting your ego. OptimusPrimeRibs (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello OptimusPrimeRibs,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Block changed to indefinite
You had been earlier blocked for only 24 hours. Given your comments that allude to your continuing your attempts to disrupt Wikipedia, I am constrained to block your account indefinitely. Should you wish to be unblocked anytime in the future, kindly do follow the process given by administrator Shirik above. Please feel free to write to me for any assistance through email. Regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  17:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)